Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:49 am

very nice article on chess.com https://www.chess.com/blog/FirebrandX/k ... -was-wrong,

obviously, not all people are clueless.

kinderchocolate
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:55 am
Full name: Ted Wong
Contact:

Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Post by kinderchocolate » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:38 am

The conclusion of the article is that it's a draw... Did you read the article?

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:40 am

kinderchocolate wrote:The conclusion of the article is that it's a draw... Did you read the article?
I did, but seemingly you did not.

BBauer
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:58 pm

Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Post by BBauer » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:42 am

In this position Kasparov resigned.
There is NO draw by repetition here.
In this point I agree with Lyudmil.
[d]1r6/5kp1/RqQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - 14 45

Kind regards
Bernhard

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:45 am

Rodolfo Leoni wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
tpoppins wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Rodolfo Leoni wrote: It's clear to everybody (except Lyudmil Tsvetkov) that 46.Ra6 leads to a clear draw, unless black blunders somewhere. White can win only in Wonderland (Alice in wonderland, never heardt of it? :) ).
wonderland is right here on the forum, whenever I post some stuff.
You know, Lyudmil, just when I think your trolling could not possibly get any more outrageous you post something like this ... and totally redeem yourself!
;)
sorry, could not get to the film, publicity intervened unpleasantly.

I guess you could do a better job by using your multiple cores for analysing, for example, the position arising after the Qc4 and Qg4 moves, the last one I posted, which is of essence for deciding how easily white wins.

we still don't know the answer there.
Indeed, a Do -> Loop. His parents forgot an "Exit Do" line in his genetics.
ne sus proices margaritas.

de tal pal tal astilla.

cada loco con su mania.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:47 am

Rodolfo Leoni wrote:Do
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote: how could they have known it then, lacking strong programs, when we still don't know it today, provided we have the like of SF?

for example, in the Qf5 defence line, critical for the final conclusion, white arrives by force after Qc4 capture and Qg4 check(Qd4 e3 Qc4 Qe5 Qg4) to the below position:

[d]3q2k1/6p1/3r1p1p/2R5/1P2Q3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - 0 19

what is this?
how could you claim black has draw, when you simply don't know what is this?
did you analyse it?
did you play some games with it?

what if white actually wins, which is my estimation?

how you could possibly call a position where 90% of lines are white wins a draw?

that is certainly beyond my understanding.
Loop
BREAK!

zullil
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:31 pm
Location: PA USA
Full name: Louis Zulli

Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Post by zullil » Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:08 am

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
anyway, white has so many winning lines, what if white deviates with 54.Qf3 instead of Qe7?

[d]3r2k1/6p1/3P1p2/4pP1p/1Pp5/2Pq1Q1P/6P1/R5K1 b - - 0 5
Looks like another draw:

Code: Select all

0.00 54... e4 55. Qxd3 exd3 56. Kf2 Rxd6 57. Ke1 Rc6 58. Kd2 Kf8 59. b5 Rc8 60. Rb1 Ke7 61. b6 Rb8 62. Rb4 Kd6 63. Rxc4 Rxb6 64. Rb4 Ra6 65. Rb2 Ke5 66. Kxd3 Kxf5 67. Rb5+ Kf4 68. Rxh5 Kg3 69. Rh7 Kxg2 70. Rxg7+ Kxh3 (depth 72, 0:25:23)

Rodolfo Leoni
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:49 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Post by Rodolfo Leoni » Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:27 am

zullil wrote: Looks like another draw:

Code: Select all

0.00 54... e4 55. Qxd3 exd3 56. Kf2 Rxd6 57. Ke1 Rc6 58. Kd2 Kf8 59. b5 Rc8 60. Rb1 Ke7 61. b6 Rb8 62. Rb4 Kd6 63. Rxc4 Rxb6 64. Rb4 Ra6 65. Rb2 Ke5 66. Kxd3 Kxf5 67. Rb5+ Kf4 68. Rxh5 Kg3 69. Rh7 Kxg2 70. Rxg7+ Kxh3 (depth 72, 0:25:23)
Hi Louis,

it's not matter of performing searches on his variations. He's pretending nobody has any chess knowledge here, so he can say any of his "90%" variations is a white win. And he sees +700 scores where we always see 0.00.

The fact is, he has no knowledge on endings or how to make an analysis. I'd advice him Averbach books about endings and Dvoretski about analysis.
F.S.I. Chess Teacher

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:55 pm

Rodolfo Leoni wrote:
zullil wrote: Looks like another draw:

Code: Select all

0.00 54... e4 55. Qxd3 exd3 56. Kf2 Rxd6 57. Ke1 Rc6 58. Kd2 Kf8 59. b5 Rc8 60. Rb1 Ke7 61. b6 Rb8 62. Rb4 Kd6 63. Rxc4 Rxb6 64. Rb4 Ra6 65. Rb2 Ke5 66. Kxd3 Kxf5 67. Rb5+ Kf4 68. Rxh5 Kg3 69. Rh7 Kxg2 70. Rxg7+ Kxh3 (depth 72, 0:25:23)
Hi Louis,

it's not matter of performing searches on his variations. He's pretending nobody has any chess knowledge here, so he can say any of his "90%" variations is a white win. And he sees +700 scores where we always see 0.00.

The fact is, he has no knowledge on endings or how to make an analysis. I'd advice him Averbach books about endings and Dvoretski about analysis.
I have read most of Dvoretsky's manuals in the original a long time ago.

but it is true, I somehow hate simple endgames and strongly prefer complex middlegame positions.

in the mg, your precious engines are even more clueless than what they are now, so much more easy to beat them.

why don't you also call Kasparov a troll, as he also supports the claim(after analysing with SF, btw.) the position is a white win?

knowledgeable people know what they are talking.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:01 pm

zullil wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
anyway, white has so many winning lines, what if white deviates with 54.Qf3 instead of Qe7?

[d]3r2k1/6p1/3P1p2/4pP1p/1Pp5/2Pq1Q1P/6P1/R5K1 b - - 0 5
Looks like another draw:

Code: Select all

0.00 54... e4 55. Qxd3 exd3 56. Kf2 Rxd6 57. Ke1 Rc6 58. Kd2 Kf8 59. b5 Rc8 60. Rb1 Ke7 61. b6 Rb8 62. Rb4 Kd6 63. Rxc4 Rxb6 64. Rb4 Ra6 65. Rb2 Ke5 66. Kxd3 Kxf5 67. Rb5+ Kf4 68. Rxh5 Kg3 69. Rh7 Kxg2 70. Rxg7+ Kxh3 (depth 72, 0:25:23)
ok, Louis, I will look at it.

I suppose you used 7-men.

but I have the strong feeling to just leave it all here, as it is really extremely difficult to handle 10 people at once, you included.

I hope you have not joined the Dark Side of the Force, your SF, I mean? :)

I simply lack the physical ability to answer 10 people at once, not to mention analyse 10 different positions, obviously I should be skipping something.

besides, it is really nasty when people call you troll 10 times per day?

what for?

because I suggest an alternave opinion, or alternative moves?

this seems very much to me like a witchhunt.

Post Reply